Why does everyone hate the PSL?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sure, they're revisionists, but they seem to be one of the largest communist parties in the country. And it's not like they're revisionist in the lame way (peaceful-coexistance, market socialism), they're just dumb enough to think the USSR was socialist until Gorbachev. So I don't really see why people hate them more than, the WWP let's say who's form of activism revolves around making the Far-Left look like the most moronic group of people in the west. They're almost as bad as the FRSO, almost. Me source

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r08LhKJs9g


So I don't see why they get a break around here while the PSL is largely ignored or mocked.

[#FF0000]

They've got god-awful politics. That's basically all there is to it.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

They've got god-awful politics. That's basically all there is to it.

Sure their defense of North Korea is a bit repelant, but is that really relevant? It's not like it necessarily changes the charcther of their party

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wait, what's wrong with the FRSO? They consistently have the best Comrade Valentines Day communiques!

[Yuppie Grinder]

Their "socialism", as presented in the embarrassing little video they put together for the 2012 election, amounts to gay marriage and nationalized healthcare. That and they're moronic tankies. Basically everything wrong with the left, except not quite as bad as CPGB-ML or those Sparts campaigning to defend "deformed worker's state" North Korea's right to nuclear weapons.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Wait, what's wrong with the FRSO? They consistently have the best Comrade Valentines Day communiques!

This

Electoral Politics: Imperialism and the Mass Line
Posted on August 16, 2012 | 8 Comments
The following is by Josh Sykes, member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

Recently, the Kasama Project attacked the Freedom Road Socialist Organization based on a statement published on the Fight Back! News website concerning the 2012 presidential elections.

The basic orientation of the attack is to accuse the FRSO of deliberating confusing the issue, in order to “give the green light” to cadres to work for the Obama campaign. The Kasama Project’s view is that the FRSO is sheepishly “still” endorsing Obama, even though the organization remains under direct attack from the FBI following the raids and Grand Jury investigation began in late September, 2010. The basis for this claim is the drawing out of one sentence in the statement on the 2012 elections that says, “In terms of voting in the presidential election, it is better to vote against Romney, especially in swing states.”

The Kasama article claims that this “green light” is actually the purpose and main point of the whole article. Fortunatly, however, Kasama is honest enough to reprint the statement so that it can be read in full. I’m sure any honest reader, upon reading the entire statement (which is much longer than this “hidden” sentence) will get what the real point is.

In 2009, I went to Brussels to speak to the International Communist Seminar, a gathering of Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations from around the world, about the Student Movement in the United States. While I was there, I was also part of a panel discussion on the U.S. presidential elections in 2008. I spoke about our position on the 2008 elections and our work organizing the demonstration at the Republican National Convention.

I began my brief talk by saying that our position was based on two principles: First, it was based on an understanding that the class character of the United States is imperialist, that is, that it is ruled by the monopoly capitalist class and in the interests of that class, and that this character cannot and will not miraculously change over night through an election, despite many people’s hopes to contrary. Second, it was based on an understanding of the mass line. On the one hand, we have an understanding that it is the people who make history, and not the politicians. On the other hand, we understand that people are paying attention to and engaging elections as their main form of political engagement during an electoral period, and that revolutionaries have to engage people where they are at rather than at where we would like for them to be.

Following these fundamental points, it becomes clear that revolutionaries who are actually engaged in mass organizing with broad forces in trade unions, the student movement, and so on, must actually say something about elections. We could say simply, “don’t vote for the bourgeois candidates”, but what would be the point? Most people who care about politics are going to go vote, and as much as they would be interested in our opinions on Libya, they would also be interested in our opinions on what to do in the voting booth. “Who, then, are the people’s candidates that we should vote for?” they will ask. To this, we don’t have a real answer.

Then there’s the question of why. In my brief talk in Brussels, I tried to emphasize the point that we wanted to elevate people’s consciousness through struggle, beginning where people are and summing things up as we go forward together. We advocated defeating McCain as a way of engaging people’s progressive political views, and we took the advanced to protest outside of the RNC to emphasize that the power to change the course of history lies in the streets with the people rather than in the conventional hall. As our pamphlet on the Mass Line puts it:

We hold that it is through these particular battles that people learn about the nature of the enemy, how this system works and what are the effective methods of struggle. This in turn allows us to: Land blows which weaken and confuse the enemy while winning all that can be won; to accumulate forces for future battles (i.e. to build the respective movements by raising the general level of organization and consciousness) and to create favorable conditions for people to take up revolutionary theory.

Despite the setbacks that came as a result of the attacks from the FBI, certainly we accomplished the goals as best we could given the conditions before us, and the FRSO is certainly stronger now than ever before. The line put into practice at that time has been proven correct in practice.

This election cycle, we of course find that the same Marxist-Leninist principles hold true. What’s the real point of the statement on the 2012 elections?

We think the conditions are right in this electoral cycle to emphasize instead the nature of the two party, one ruling class system and talk about why what we have is not democracy and not good enough. We do think it is still important for progressives to go to the polls to oppose concrete attacks on democratic rights, such as Voter ID and anti-gay amendments. In terms of voting in the presidential election, it is better to vote against Romney, especially in swing states. In other states like California, the Republicans are unlikely to win. In these cases, it would be positive to have a strong third party vote total.

Our main message is that no matter how hopeful we are for change to come through electoral politics, this is not the venue for real change. Citizens United, and its ruling that corporations are free to openly buy the allegiance of politicians, makes more clear what has always been true: those who have the gold, make the rules. During this particular election cycle progressives should emphasize and talk about the problems inherent in the system, while placing demands on politicians from both parties. Our faith and our future are in the people’s struggle, not the ballot box.

Simple enough, one would think. See you in the streets at the RNC and the DNC.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/

So basically they butchered Mao's concept of the Mass-Line to justify voting Barack Obama. By their logic we ought to support Pro-Life rallies because "Hey the masses are doing it!" Plus they think that the current revisionist states are socialists, because obviously they've never heard of the Sino-Soviet Split


And for more fun try browsing that website. I'm sure it will make you love the FRSO

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Their "socialism", as presented in the embarrassing little video they put together for the 2012 election, amounts to gay marriage and nationalized healthcare. That and they're moronic tankies. Basically everything wrong with the left, except not quite as bad as CPGB-ML or those Sparts campaigning to defend "deformed worker's state" North Korea's right to nuclear weapons.

Probably just a minume/maximum programme. It doesn't necessarily prove that they aren't socialist. Here is an except from the Draft Programme of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party

the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party advances as its immediate political task the over throw of the tsarist autocracy and its replacement by a republic based on a democratic constitution that would ensure:

1) the people’s sovereignty, i.e., concentration of supreme state power in the hands of a legislative assembly consisting of representatives of the people;

2) universal, equal, and direct suffrage, both in elections to the legislative assembly and in elections to all local organs of self-government, for every citizen who has reached the age of twenty-one; the secret ballot at all elections; the right of every voter to be elected to any of the representative assemblies; remuneration for representatives of the people;

3) inviolability of the person and domicile of citizens;

4) unrestricted freedom of conscience, speech, the press and of assembly, the right to strike and to organise unions;

5) freedom of movement and occupation;

6) abolition of social-estates; full equality for all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion or race;

7) recognition of the right to self-determination for all nations forming part of the state;

8) the right of every citizen to prosecute any official, without previously complaining to the latter’s superiors;

9) general arming of the people instead of maintaining a standing army;

10) separation of the church from the state and of the school from the church;

11) universal, free, and compulsory education up to the age of sixteen; state provision of food, clothing, and school supplies to needy children.


To protect the working class and to raise its fighting capacity,[3] the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party demands:

1) that the working day be limited to eight hours for all wage-workers;

2) that a weekly rest period of not less than thirty-six consecutive hours for wage-workers of both sexes employed in all branches of the national economy be established by law;

3) that all overtime be prohibited;

4) that night-work (from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.) in all branches of the national economy be prohibited, with the exception of those branches in which it is essential for technical reasons;

5) that employers be forbidden to employ children under the age of fifteen;

6) that female labour be forbidden in industries specifically injurious to the health of women;

7) that the law establish employers’ civil liability for workers’ complete or partial disability caused by accidents or by harmful working conditions; that the worker should not be required to prove his employer’s responsibility for disability;

8) that payment of wages in kind be prohibited[4] ;

9) that state pensions be paid to aged workers, who have become incapacitated;

10) that the number of factory inspectors be increased; that female inspectors be appointed in industries .in which female labour predominates; that observance of the factory laws be supervised by representatives elected by the workers and paid by the state; piece rates and rejection of work done should also be supervised by elected representatives of the workers;

11) that local self-government bodies, in co-operation with elected representatives of the workers, supervise sanitary conditions in living quarters provided for workers by employers, and also see to the observance of rules operating in such living quarters and the terms on which they are leased, with the object of protecting the wage-workers from employers’ interference in their lives and activities as private persons and citizens;

12) that a properly organised and comprehensive system of health inspection be instituted to supervise working conditions at all enterprises employing wage-labour;

13) that the Factory Inspectorate’s activities be extended to artisan, home, and handicraft industries, and to state- owned enterprises;

14) that any breach of the labour protection laws be punishable by law;

15) that employers be forbidden to make any deductions from wages, on any grounds or for any purpose whatsoever (fines, rejections, etc.);

16) that factory courts be set up in all branches of the national economy, with equal representation of workers and employers.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm

So maybe you have some sectarian disputes with them, so do I, as someone who rejects electoralism and is an Anti-Revisionist. However I don't see any reason to believe they aren't revolutionary.

[#FF0000]

It's not like it necessarily changes the charcther of their party

What do you mean the "character of their party"? If a party's politics suck, the party sucks.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What do you mean the "character of their party"? If a party's politics suck, the party sucks.

Their stance on foreign issues such as NK and Cuba don't really give us any reason to reject them outright. It's possibly to tactically support a movement without agreeing with it. Other than their stance on historical and international issues, they really haven't made any capitulation to anything Anti-Socialist. At the end of the day, there are about 12 communist parties in the US and if you insist on agreeing on absolutely every single issue then we'll never get anywhere. There is nothing wrong with compromise on the insignificant stuff.

[Ostrinski]

They're weird Brezhnevite tankies. I find their politics to be horrid.

[Ostrinski]

Their stance on foreign issues such as NK and Cuba don't really give us any reason to reject them outright. It's possibly to tactically support a movement without agreeing with it. Other than their stance on historical and international issues, they really haven't made any capitulation to anything Anti-Socialist.Maybe it doesn't give you a reason to reject them outright, but you can't speak for people with politics that are not your own.

[#FF0000]

Their stance on foreign issues such as NK and Cuba don't really give us any reason to reject them outright. It's possibly to tactically support a movement without agreeing with it. Other than their stance on historical and international issues, they really haven't made any capitulation to anything Anti-Socialist. At the end of the day, there are about 12 communist parties in the US and if you insist on agreeing on absolutely every single issue then we'll never get anywhere. There is nothing wrong with compromise on the insignificant stuff.

nah being a nominally communist group doesn't make one immune to ruthless criticism, especially when a group's politics are that bad.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Maybe it doesn't give you a reason to reject them outright, but you can't speak for people with politics that are not your own.

Ok so you disagree with them on theoretical issues X,Y,B, at the end of the day, with about 12 other communist parties in the US, you really need to ask your self does it really matter? There comes a point where you need to let some stuff go.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Ok so you disagree with them on theoretical issues X,Y,B, at the end of the day, with about 12 other communist parties in the US, you really need to ask your self does it really matter? There comes a point where you need to let some stuff go.

It's not like these parties consist of a meaningful worker's movement worth making compromises to work within. There a bunch of religious sects made up of mentally unhinged nerds. It's just a role playing game, who even gives a shit.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's not like these parties consist of a meaningful worker's movement worth making compromises to work within. There a bunch of religious sects made up of mentally unhinged nerds. It's just a role playing game, who even gives a shit.

I'm not going to pretend that they are the most important party on the left, but their candidate in the recent Long Island election got 5,057 votes, or 16% of the result. Their presidential candidate got almost 10,000 votes. So to dismiss them as a sect is a mischarcthization.

[Ostrinski]

Ok so you disagree with them on theoretical issues X,Y,B, at the end of the day, with about 12 other communist parties in the US, you really need to ask your self does it really matter? There comes a point where you need to let some stuff go.I don't have an inch of reservation for any of the communist organizations in the United States, except maybe for a couple of the tinier sects. I don't know what you're talking about with "letting things go." What you're asking is for people with irreconcilable politics with one of the most worthless organizations to try and find some morsel of degree to which they can hop into bed with them.

I find that to be insulting and repulsive.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

nah being a nominally communist group doesn't make one immune to ruthless criticism, especially when a group's politics are that bad.

I'm not saying that you can't criticize them, It just seems that everyone is a bit overly dismissive of them. And as a side note, I would probably never join the PSL do to my opposition to electoral politics, but I wouldn't mind working side to side with these people in their grassroot campaigns since they do seem like decent, though extremely misguided, folk.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So basically they butchered Mao's concept of the Mass-Line to justify voting Barack Obama. By their logic we ought to support Pro-Life rallies because "Hey the masses are doing it!" Plus they think that the current revisionist states are socialists, because obviously they've never heard of the Sino-Soviet Split

And for more fun try browsing that website. I'm sure it will make you love the FRSO

To be fair, there's a difference between tailism (an error in judgement made in good faith), and being an out-and-out reactionary. Realistically, voting or not voting for Obama is a pretty bad basis for passing judgement on an individual's politics - it's marking a line on a piece of paper - who cares? Organizationally, encouraging people to vote Obama, critically, is a mistake, and fails to show principled leadership, but is still different than calling on people to vote for Obama uncritically. So, yeah, they're wrong, but they're not beyond rectification. ;)1

In any case, that's not the FRSO I was talking about. I was talking about the other FRSO, FRSO/OSCL. :lol:

[Ocean Seal]

I'm not going to pretend that they are the most important party on the left, but their candidate in the recent Long Beach election got 5,057 votes, or 16% of the result. Their presidential candidate got almost 10,000 votes. So to dismiss them as a sect is a mischarcthization.
Sorry for the namesake correction, but Long Island is in New York and Long Beach is in California.
They have quite a presence in Southern California. But I think that the opposition that people have to them on this forum is the fact that they constantly feel the need to promote their positions to the point where one cannot regard them as irrelevant. As people, I find them to be absolutely fine, in fact oftentimes exemplary revolutionaries (at least the ones that I met in New York). But the fact that their handbook includes things like how it was okay for the Tienanmen Sq. repression to occur on the account that the most pro-Gorbachev wing of the party supported the protests. But you know they actually had a pretty objective article on North Korea, just don't get them alone talking about how Chavez will bring Venezuelan socialism about.

In any case, I like them, I feel that if some of the members here did party work with them their opinion of them would change.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

To be fair, there's a difference between tailism (an error in judgement made in good faith), and being an out-and-out reactionary. Realistically, voting or not voting for Obama is a pretty bad basis for passing judgement on an individual's politics - it's marking a line on a piece of paper - who cares? Organizationally, encouraging people to vote Obama, critically, is a mistake, and fails to show principled leadership, but is still different than calling on people to vote for Obama uncritically. So, yeah, they're wrong, but they're not beyond rectification. ;)1

In any case, that's not the FRSO I was talking about. I was talking about the other FRSO, FRSO/OSCL. :lol:

I suppose you do make a point, after all if there isn't going to be a revolution through the ballot box then we might as well vote for a damn monkey. But to me it seems that this sort of Mass-line is trying to engage the people that would vote for Obama as the revolutionary proletariat when the people most likely to go for revolutionary politics are the ones that are most disenfranchised by the political system in its entirety, that is the apolitical "lumpen" (by the vulgar definition that only sees the morally upright labor aristocracy as the proletariat) proletariat is the most likey vanguard of the working class and hence the most likely to rally to revolutionary politics since they are the ones who have nothing to lose but their chains, while Obama voters at best have nothing more than a Trade Union consciousness and at worse are liberals and our class enemies who we don't want to join our side.

And how is the otherside of the FRSO split, I haven't heard from them. What are their politics like?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sorry for the namesake correction, but Long Island is in New York and Long Beach is in California.
They have quite a presence in Southern California. But I think that the opposition that people have to them on this forum is the fact that they constantly feel the need to promote their positions to the point where one cannot regard them as irrelevant. As people, I find them to be absolutely fine, in fact oftentimes exemplary revolutionaries (at least the ones that I met in New York). But the fact that their handbook includes things like how it was okay for the Tienanmen Sq. repression to occur on the account that the most pro-Gorbachev wing of the party supported the protests. But you know they actually had a pretty objective article on North Korea, just don't get them alone talking about how Chavez will bring Venezuelan socialism about.

In any case, I like them, I feel that if some of the members here did party work with them their opinion of them would change.

Generally I agree, while I wouldn't want to liquidate myself withing that party I do feel that they are a bunch of good fellows that we can work along side. Just because they have a few bad historical positions doesn't make them "disgusting" as some have said. We can work with them as long as we maintain our political principles. The Unity-Criticism-Unity model is the best for these sorts of things

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, uh, so the thing about various parties in the United States trying to make themselves into the vanguard . . . it's probably a misunderstanding of how a vanguard party happens. Like, probably your Central Committee is bonkers if it thinks it's at the head of the class, since "the class" as a "class for itself" isn't, like, a thing at this point. So, like, y'know, maybe it'd be better to step back and ask, "What precedes the vanguard party?" 'Cos, like, if I were a Leninist, that's maybe what I'd see the need to figure out.

At least, that's what turns me off.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I disagree with them politically and often tactically. But I don't hate them and their members have played positive roles in struggles.

Why is there hate for them? There's enough hating to go around for all groups on the left. Revolutionaries have little influence or connection to the class right now and so that has an effect on the mentality of activists and armchairs alike that is similar to the attitude of sports fans of a losing franchise.

Objectively there are very high stakes - with possible increased capitalist instability, global climate change and so on - Subjectively the stakes are pretty low and so if the PSL does a good job in a movement then it is a small step forward and it's hardly as though everyone is going to be supporting all their politics. If they fuck up, then it's a small set back, but it would hardly be like a fuck-up by some CP back when revolutionaries had more connections with the class and there was more class struggle.

So while there are real disagreements on political issues and I think a lot of the
hate specifically is mere hater-ism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yeah, uh, so the thing about various parties in the United States trying to make themselves into the vanguard . . . it's probably a misunderstanding of how a vanguard party happens. Like, probably your Central Committee is bonkers if it thinks it's at the head of the class, since "the class" as a "class for itself" isn't, like, a thing at this point. So, like, y'know, maybe it'd be better to step back and ask, "What precedes the vanguard party?" 'Cos, like, if I were a Leninist, that's maybe what I'd see the need to figure out.

At least, that's what turns me off.

Lenin's concept of the vanguard was based on the idea that the working class develops unevenly, that is certain layers are more prone to revolutionary politics due to their position in society while other layers are basically bourgeois except for technical reasons and can't produce anything themselves other than some trade union consciousness. The idea of the "Vanguard party: ought to be the logical extension of this idea, that this part of the class orginizes it's self into the party which leds the less progressive parts of the class into action. Of course this has been butchered by modern "Leninists" who think that the most advanced layers of the proletariat= some stoner college students who have totally got this Marxism thing right mannn. Likewise Trotskyites commit a similar error when they try to organize the most advanced layers of the working class but confuse the vanguard for the labor aristocracy in reformist unions and just end up wasting their time with people who have no desire for revolutionary politics.


But in sort, a theory doesn't make a party the vanguard. A left communist party can be just as good of a vanguard as an Anarchist platform group. What defines the vanguard is the participation and leadership of the most advanced layers of the working class, that is the queer, racialized, gendered, femminized, urban "precariat". The ones who have nothing to lose but their chains. Most Leninist parties in America are composed of student radicals while the British Trotskyist movement is composed of Labor Aristocrats. Which is slightly better than their American counter parts but in the recent SWP scandal we've seen how reactionary these people can be.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I disagree with them politically and often tactically. But I don't hate them and their members have played positive roles in struggles.

Why is there hate for them? There's enough hating to go around for all groups on the left. Revolutionaries have little influence or connection to the class right now and so that has an effect on the mentality of activists and armchairs alike that is similar to the attitude of sports fans of a losing franchise.

Objectively there are very high stakes - with possible increased capitalist instability, global climate change and so on - Subjectively the stakes are pretty low and so if the PSL does a good job in a movement then it is a small step forward and it's hardly as though everyone is going to be supporting all their politics. If they fuck up, then it's a small set back, but it would hardly be like a fuck-up by some CP back when revolutionaries had more connections with the class and there was more class struggle.

So while there are real disagreements on political issues and I think a lot of the
hate specifically is mere hater-ism.

I think this is a good attitude to make. We shouldn't dismiss parties by turning theoretical issues into moral ones. As I've already said I'd never be able to reconcile my politcal views with theirs but I do feel like they are a good group. I suppose I would think a united front with them is the best possible stragety

[Art Vandelay]

Can we just agree that the PSL and WWP, have equally as bad politics (as in horrendously bad), and that neither should get preferential treatment?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I suppose you do make a point, after all if there isn't going to be a revolution through the ballot box then we might as well vote for a damn monkey. But to me it seems that this sort of Mass-line is trying to engage the people that would vote for Obama as the revolutionary proletariat when the people most likely to go for revolutionary politics are the ones that are most disenfranchised by the political system in its entirety, that is the apolitical "lumpen" (by the vulgar definition that only sees the morally upright labor aristocracy as the proletariat) proletariat is the most likey vanguard of the working class and hence the most likely to rally to revolutionary politics since they are the ones who have nothing to lose but their chains, while Obama voters at best have nothing more than a Trade Union consciousness and at worse are liberals and our class enemies who we don't want to join our side.

And how is the otherside of the FRSO split, I haven't heard from them. What are their politics like?

Erm. I don't know a tonne about them. They uphold self-organization of oppressed nations within the US, which appeals to me, and they argue for "Left Refoundation" rather than declaring themselves a vanguard party, which also makes sense to me, at this juncture. They also argue uphold a "lower/deeper" orientation, focusing on "sectors of the working class where low-income oppressed-nationality workers, especially women, play a leading role". Out of this orientation though, they seem to draw sort of reformist-y conclusions, which I find kind of a turn-off (orienting toward social services rather than autonomy and self-reliance).

Meh.

[ellipsis]

I didn't realize they are so hated. They have a pretty good rep in anarchist circles in the Bay Area.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I didn't realize they are so hated. They have a pretty good rep in anarchist circles in the Bay Area.

Only by revleft folks from what I can gather from the people I've interacted with

[Art Vandelay]

I didn't realize they are so hated. They have a pretty good rep in anarchist circles in the Bay Area.

That says more about supposed 'anarchist circles' then it does of the PSL.

[Sand Castle]

As an ex-PSL member, let me just weigh in here.


And it's not like they're revisionist in the lame way (peaceful-coexistance, market socialism)There have been times, and articles on their website, that come close to this. If you look at anything they write about modern China, you'll see they still consider it somewhat socialist. Internally, they will be more critical of it. But you will also find those who are more favorable to modern China's path personally. Do you consider China socialist? If so, then I guess this point won't matter to you. Go read some of their older articles on China.


And as a side note, I would probably never join the PSL do to my opposition to electoral politics, but I wouldn't mind working side to side with these people in their grassroot campaigns since they do seem like decent, though extremely misguided, folk. Again, from experience, I don't think you'll enjoy that. Then again, it depends on where you go. There are some good folks in different PSL chapters. But the one I was closest to talked to me like I was stupid and had no experience. There is favoritism. Those who are buddies with the people in leadership are consulted, invited to speak at things, etc. If you are a hard worker but not a favorite, it's like "forget you." If you are an at-large member, meaning you aren't near a branch, they will scrutinize your ideas as if you are a child and can't do anything without the golden touch of leadership. But here is the thing, these people are far away in a different city. How are they qualified to tell you how to organize your area? Conditions are different, situations are different, political engagement varies from area to area.

Now imagine people like that trying to work honestly with others in the grassroots. It would leave a foul taste in people's mouths at the end of the day.

I don't know where you live, so maybe the PSL members there are the opposite of the ones by me and others who left for similar reasons. A lot of it does depend on individuals, and there are some good people in the PSL, but the strategy is the same nationally.

There were good people I worked with when I was a member. The party is a mixed bag with good people and holier-than-thou/arrogant people, and it seems the latter has the most influence and control. Some say it raises the issue of cliques, but I think it's more complex than that.

[MarxSchmarx]

Again, from experience, I don't think you'll enjoy that. Then again, it depends on where you go. There are some good folks in different PSL chapters. But the one I was closest to talked to me like I was stupid and had no experience. There is favoritism. Those who are buddies with the people in leadership are consulted, invited to speak at things, etc. If you are a hard worker but not a favorite, it's like "forget you." If you are an at-large member, meaning you aren't near a branch, they will scrutinize your ideas as if you are a child and can't do anything without the golden touch of leadership. But here is the thing, these people are far away in a different city. How are they qualified to tell you how to organize your area? Conditions are different, situations are different, political engagement varies from area to area.

Now imagine people like that trying to work honestly with others in the grassroots. It would leave a foul taste in people's mouths at the end of the day.

I don't know where you live, so maybe the PSL members there are the opposite of the ones by me and others who left for similar reasons. A lot of it does depend on individuals, and there are some good people in the PSL, but the strategy is the same nationally.

There were good people I worked with when I was a member. The party is a mixed bag with good people and holier-than-thou/arrogant people, and it seems the latter has the most influence and control. Some say it raises the issue of cliques, but I think it's more complex than that.

In fairness, what you describe is not all that unique to the PSL but is quite true of a lot Bolshevist groups that I have come into contact with and applies also to democratic socialist organizations (there used to be some posters here from the US Socialist Party who would tell of disastrously petty leadership circles for instance). In fact I suspect, at least among Marxist orgs, the only groups that escape a lot of the issues you describe are groups so sectarian and dogmatic that they have like 7 members. And even then.

[ellipsis]

That says more about supposed 'anarchist circles' then it does of the PSL.

I meant in comparison to other Marxist orgs. And don't forget how active Bay Area answer is, so that help push their street cred.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I meant in comparison to other Marxist orgs. And don't forget how active Bay Area answer is, so that help push their street cred.

You'd think your Anarchist buddies would view ultra-lefts or at least trots better than the social-democrat/tankie hybrid that is the PSL.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

You'd think your Anarchist buddies would view ultra-lefts or at least trots better than the social-democrat/tankie hybrid that is the PSL.
Ultra lefts have no relevant presence in the US.


And you have nothing to base your claim of social democracy other than the fact that you don't like them.

[KurtFF8]

Their "socialism", as presented in the embarrassing little video they put together for the 2012 election, amounts to gay marriage and nationalized healthcare. That and they're moronic tankies. Basically everything wrong with the left, except not quite as bad as CPGB-ML or those Sparts campaigning to defend "deformed worker's state" North Korea's right to nuclear weapons.

This only makes sense if you actually didn't watch/listen to that video which explicitly mentions reorganizing society to be owned and run by the working class. But I guess it's easier to attack the Party if you ignore what they actually said in this instance.

I'm not sure how this thread could have turned into anything but tendency baiting, espeiclaly considering even the OP contained language like:

they're just dumb enough to think the USSR was socialist until Gorbachev

And of course we've just seen a lot more of the "they're moronic tankies" attacks. I'm not sure why someone would bother posting these empty attacks. Perhaps some folks just need to be heard and make sure everyone remembers that they don't like a specific group in case we forgot.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Ultra lefts have no relevant presence in the US.


And you have nothing to base your claim of social democracy other than the fact that you don't like them.

Dude just fucking watch this: Mh-4R9ThU9A
Socialism for them doesn't involve statelessness of the abolition of work, just nationalization of industry and greater equality before the law. They're soc-dems masturbating to pictures of Khrushchev. Terrible.
You'll probably respond with something like "Well at least they're realistic!", and I want to let you know that I sincerely don't give a fuck to save you the effort.

[KurtFF8]

Socialism for them doesn't involve statelessness of the abolition of work, just nationalization of industry and greater equality before the law. They're soc-dems masturbating to pictures of Khrushchev. Terrible.
You'll probably respond with something like "Well at least they're realistic!", and I want to let you know that I sincerely don't give a fuck to save you the effort.

For someone who just said "dude just watch this" you seem to have either been watching it without the volume, or are just being dishonest about what the video you keep bringing up is talking about.

Within the first 30 seconds the video says:

Socialism means...working people taking control and ownership over factories, mines, transportation, media, communication, and service sector enterprises

How that is just social democracy is beyond me.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

You'd think your Anarchist buddies would view ultra-lefts or at least trots better than the social-democrat/tankie hybrid that is the PSL.
again, says more about those anarcists than anything else.
Anyway, there really is no proper reason to hate on the PSL more than similar parties. They aren´t any worse than the WWP and they are certainly not as bad as the FRSO. What separates them from other anti- imp/tankie sects is that they are more successful and active than the competition, and I think there we have the answer. PSL gets all the hate because the are the most succesful and visible of the bunch, which makes them the obvious target, kind of like the CPUSA.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Within the first 30 seconds the video says:


How that is just social democracy is beyond me.
it´s pure titoism;)

[KurtFF8]

Anyway, there really is no proper reason to hate on the PSL more than similar parties. They aren´t any worse than the WWP and they are certainly not as bad as the FRSO. What separates them from other anti- imp/tankie sects is that they are more successful and active than the competition, and I think there we have the answer. PSL gets all the hate because the are the most succesful and visible of the bunch, which makes them the obvious target, kind of like the CPUSA.

I'm not too sure that the CPUSA is all that visible or active in all honesty. At least they haven't really been in my experience on the activist Left here in NY

[RedHal]

anyone who spends 10 mins reading the threads on this forum knows that leftcoms and anarchists members are the most active posters. So it's not surprising to see why "everyone hates the PSL" on here. Since they have a relatively strong membership and attracts this much hate from the fringe of the revolutionary left fringe, they must be doing something right.

[Sand Castle]

Dude just fucking watch this: Mh-4R9ThU9A
Socialism for them doesn't involve statelessness of the abolition of work, just nationalization of industry and greater equality before the law. They're soc-dems masturbating to pictures of Khrushchev. Terrible.
You'll probably respond with something like "Well at least they're realistic!", and I want to let you know that I sincerely don't give a fuck to save you the effort.

And all those people in the video you posted are either in, or close to, leadership. A true organization of the people (or one that wishes to be such) would emphasize its rank and file. Sure, you can't let just any new person who you barely know be the face of an organization, but you can't have the same people representing you over and over again. It's organizing 101 you guys.


In fairness, what you describe is not all that unique to the PSL but is quite true of a lot Bolshevist groups that I have come into contact with and applies also to democratic socialist organizations (there used to be some posters here from the US Socialist Party who would tell of disastrously petty leadership circles for instance). In fact I suspect, at least among Marxist orgs, the only groups that escape a lot of the issues you describe are groups so sectarian and dogmatic that they have like 7 members. And even then.

It seems to me that it's time for new types of organizations, ones that come out of existing struggles and aren't dinosaurs like the SP or dinosaur eggs like PSL.

[ellipsis]

I'm not too sure that the CPUSA is all that visible or active in all honesty. At least they haven't really been in my experience on the activist Left here in NY

I've never run into them in any context.

[Fourth Internationalist]

they're just dumb enough to think the USSR was socialist That's more than enough to dislike them. Plus, they believe Cuba is and China was socialist. They think a country is socialist because it has a red flag, basically.

[ed miliband]

Ultra lefts have no relevant presence in the US.


we arent talking about the us as a whole though, but the bay area, where there is a sizeable ultra-left uh, "scene".

[Rusty Shackleford]

And all those people in the video you posted are either in, or close to, leadership. A true organization of the people (or one that wishes to be such) would emphasize its rank and file. Sure, you can't let just any new person who you barely know be the face of an organization, but you can't have the same people representing you over and over again. It's organizing 101 you guys.



It seems to me that it's time for new types of organizations, ones that come out of existing struggles and aren't dinosaurs like the SP or dinosaur eggs like PSL.

Yet those people in the video, most of whom i know, and some pretty well, are EXTREMELY active in party organs and in the street. Yet there are far more that are just as active, have been active longer, but are not in the video. So what?

Tell me, if someone freshly joins an organization, but still has a shaky understanding of socialism and possibly reactionary sayings, should they be the public face or should they be given time to develop politically and organizationally?

I have been active for a few years now in the party and yes, ive had issues with people being cliquish, people being fucking nuts, people having strange views, arguments over branches and so on. But guess what, ive met and seen people weekly(with some exceptions of course, im not a machine) in the party, doing various kinds of work, developing, for years now and ive learned that no matter what organization, this will happen. Petty fights and so on are a byproduct of people being organized and in contact with each other. Shit, it happens when people are not organized either!


Someone referred to Tienanmen Sq as being in the membership handbook, that is false, it is in the party program. generally to get a membership handbook you have to actually come in contact with a real live party member. (which people will drive for hours each way to help at-large members develop!) I know this is a minor point, and somewhat petty :lol: but there ya have it.

As for our politics. IF you consider them atrocious, indefensible, objectionable, or whatever then so be it, stay away. were not out there to recruit communists, were out there to attempt to make communists, and if you call our program uncommunist then so be it, and stay away.

Rarely is there ever discussion about 'trying to be the vanguard' when we know we, the left, and the working class in general is weak. Discussion around the concept of the vanguard party is for conceptual purposes because it is not a practical chance right now, or in the mid-future.

Searching for the holy grail of party line and organizational structure by fetishizing historical moments and orgs is fruitless. (http://kasamaproject.org/communist-organization/4230-notes-on-micro-sects-and-the-fetish-of-the-party) attempting to build and organization and develop analysis and outlook is not. lessons are learned and in this period, when health care is so bad, for example, or if imperialist intervention after intervention goes unchecked in the us, then i highly doubt a flyer with perfect analysis will change much, if anything. certainly not cause workers to start taking shit over and hanging bosses.

Now, back to our 'atrocious' politics. Do comrades have disagreements with official stances? of course! The thing is, how we operate, we try to keep people on the same page publicly, and debate, discuss, argue, whatever, privately. The party line is also in motion as well, though anchored by various principles which we seek to adhere to as best as we can. Are we a fully developed organization? no, of course not. we're quite young and we are only having our second party congress right now as i type this. changes will come about or things may stay the same. Our first party congress produced our current handbook, our current constitution, and current membership handbook. These are not static positions and documents though!


Conditions, like everything else, change, and a decision which is correct at one particular time may prove to be entirely unsuitable at another"

sure, that quote is a no-brainer, but maybe people need to be reminded of this simple fact.

Sure, the sentimental "we're trying!" wont win anyone over, and it shouldnt really be used as an argument in favor of the party, but we have an organization that is developing as a whole, but in places, they lag behind. There will be mistakes made, i can guarantee you this right now. Yes, we will fuck up at some point. Maybe on a small scale, maybe on a big scale. The best thing though is to make, recognize, and learn from those mistakes before a revolutionary situation actually occurs. Hence, build the organization now.


and from personal experience, i have not had problems with any sorts of anarchists. And people who criticize those anarchists who work with us in the bay; have you been to the bay, have you met these anarchists? I suspect you are just posturing and maybe even have a revolutionary-er-than-thou attitude. There are anarchists that commit to doing work, and there are anarchists who simply show up to throw a bottle, blow off some steam and be bad-ass, and do nothing else. whether or not someone throws a bottle is not even the question though. its whether a person actually attempts to make change happen, to tangibly benefit people.

as for electoral politics, we do not engage in elections on principle, and we do not boycott elections on principle. we are using what ever options that is available to us that we can use in a principled manner to try to build appeal for socialism and revolutionary outlook.

and finally venezuela, the party does not see the bolivarian process as something that will establish socialism (in terms of things like dotp, collectivization and all that) but we will defend it none the less because it is making huge advancements for venezuelan workers and peasants. Not to mention if the state were actually overthrown in Ven. (which we see as a condition for building socialism) chances are, there would be a military intervention, which im sure is something no one wants and understandably may drive peoples decision making processes in ven.

As you can probably tell by now, im not very good at writing or organizing my thoughts. (you might also be able to tell by the headache you now have :lol:) But i am going to leave it at this. I am not going to address specific political points, point by point, because tbh, im lazy when it comes to typing.







we arent talking about the us as a whole though, but the bay area, where there is a sizeable ultra-left uh, "scene".
Where? besides anarchists, the only ultras out there, generally speaking, are either holed up in the universities or doing nothing at all. if it were active such a sizable scene must camouflage itself well.

Now, i have seen 1 Progressive Labor Party (not left com or anything i know, but they have an ultra mentality in some regards, though i have not thorougly investigated. mostly hearsay tbh) paper in 3 years in a cafe on Mission St. and i know there are some other micro sects and what not, but this scene you speak of, i have never seen it.

[Leftsolidarity]

If you want to go by Revleft standards, yeah people hate us and PSL but if you want to talk about real life it's different.

I don't like the leadership of the PSL because of the split and that drama but the majority of their members I really like and we have very similar positions. Both parties are fairly well respected by people in all sections of the struggle; labor, LGBTQ, anti-racist, police brutality, feminist, etc., etc.

If you're on a website that has a lot of anarchists/left communists (like Revleft) you're not going to find many people who like those parties or the politics. But what a lot of armchair revolutionaries and ultra-Leftists online think about it doesn't really make if we win the respect in the struggle and on the streets (which is what happens).

And about that Red Dawn thing, I know some of the people that were working on that protest and within the party there was very minimal talk or emphasis (from what I saw cuz I was in the city right before it) put on it. I mean yeah we all agree that it's propaganda and we support the DPRK but that doesn't mean that we put a big focus or effort into countering some shitty movie. It was some people that took the lead on setting it up because they felt strongly about it and put it into motion.

[Let's Get Free]

They've got the same shit breznehvite politics as the WWP, except the PSL tries to give their party a cool, hip, radical veneer with posters of Che Guevara and their pursuing of crass electoralism.

[Art Vandelay]

Supporting that hell hole known as the DPRK is an unacceptable position for any 'communist' to uphold.

[KurtFF8]

They've got the same shit breznehvite politics as the WWP, except the PSL tries to give their party a cool, hip, radical veneer with posters of Che Guevara and their pursuing of crass electoralism.

What's the point of even making a post like this? It's not even a real criticism but rather is an empty jab.

[Art Vandelay]

What's the point of even making a post like this? It's not even a real criticism but rather is an empty jab.

That's all that Coup does, however I must say that there have been some very valid criticisms made so far (not to say that the PSL hasn't done supporters haven't made an adequate attempt to answer them).

[Leftsolidarity]

And all those people in the video you posted are either in, or close to, leadership. A true organization of the people (or one that wishes to be such) would emphasize its rank and file. Sure, you can't let just any new person who you barely know be the face of an organization, but you can't have the same people representing you over and over again. It's organizing 101 you guys.




You clearly don't really know what you're talking about. I saw no members of the leadership in that video. I know many of those people personally and, as far as I know, none of them hold actual leadership positions. They are just active members and do a lot of great work.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

is there already a thread on this forum or some other material I can look at which goes into the reasons behind the split between the WWP and PSL?

[subcp]

Marcy and Copeland took Trotskyism to their most extreme and absurd conclusions. If the USSR under Stalin is a degenerated worker's state, and deserves defending (based on the material organization of the national economy) because it started out as a proletarian revolution, then the Glacis must be similar (same command economies with a CP running the show), so they are deformed worker's states (since they started without a proletarian revolution), but still deserve critical support/defense; if China and North Korea have similar situations as the Deformed Worker's States (no proletarian revolution, but a militarily or USSR sponsored CP 1 party state and command economy), they must be Deformed Workers States too (nevermind the peasantry)- so if revolutionary or insurrectionary workers move against these (actually capitalist) deformed and degenerated workers states, the CP dominated command economy nation-state must be defended instead of the insurgent, self-organized proletariat. Therefore, the Hungarian tanks were the ones deserving support, not the soviet forming revolutionary working-class. If a deformed workers state is involved in an imperialist war, it must be critically supported- because the world is divided between all these new deformed workers states and the degenerated WS, the USSR, and the imperialist-capitalist bloc.

Therefore, North Korea, PRC, USSR and the Glacis states (Poland, Romania, etc.) all make up the socialist-DotP bloc of the proletariat, along with the workers of all nations. Wait, the Vietcong are struggling against American imperialism. Since we supported the North Korean government and military over American imperialism, we must also support the Vietcong, since they are similar, but are a largely peasant guerilla army trying to establish what will be another 'deformed workers state' (and they did, so SR of Vietnam is added to the socialist-proletarian bloc). Since all these peasants engaged in national liberation war are like the Vietcong, they too are all a part of the socialist bloc.

Therefore, class struggle between workers and capitalists is replaced with Global Class Struggle, the fight of nations with a 1 party state and command economy against Western imperialist nations.

The PRC has a political crisis, the USSR dissolves, all those Glacis states go imperialist- only Cuba, North Korea, kinda China Vietnam and Laos as deformed workers states.

Hold on, a lot of non-CP dominated states have kinda command economies (Libya, etc.) and a lot of them are peasant based and are at war with America/Western Imperialism (nations like Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc.) are fighting imperialism, so they are now on the socialist bloc side.

Oh, so the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting American imperialism too, now Bin Ladin-Hamas-Hezbollah are part of the progressive-socialist bloc, well they're like the non-CP controlled 1 party states of the periphery, which are like peasant majority nations controlled by Communist Parties, which were like the deformed workers states of the Glacis, which were kinda like the USSR under Stalin, which degenerated from the proletarian revolution which followed Trotsky's permanent revolution.

Full circle. It's Trotskyism turned up to 11.

[Lucretia]

For someone who just said "dude just watch this" you seem to have either been watching it without the volume, or are just being dishonest about what the video you keep bringing up is talking about.

Within the first 30 seconds the video says:


How that is just social democracy is beyond me.

Yes, working people taking control of the factories, just as we see happening in the socialist paradise of North Korea.

[Lucretia]

is there already a thread on this forum or some other material I can look at which goes into the reasons behind the split between the WWP and PSL?

A while back, probably more than a year ago, there was a pretty long thread in which basically people of every tendency on the board kept prodding members of the two groups to explain the rationale behind the split. The only response given was, "Well, it was a long time ago. Let's look forward and not backward."

[KurtFF8]

Yes, working people taking control of the factories, just as we see happening in the socialist paradise of North Korea.

I wasn't aware the video was about North Korea

[Lucretia]

I wasn't aware the video was about North Korea

We've had this discussion once before, KurtF8. I believe it consisted me of trying to explain to you how, if the video was about the PSL's definition of socialism, discussion about the PSL's definition of North Korea as "socialist" had direct relevance to the video, not least of all because the party's characterization raised serious questions about whether the video was giving an accurate portrayal of its party's views.

That you keep trying the sever the two topics to avoid discussing NK shows how even the party's supporters have to shame-facedly airbrush their party's absurd line. Not exactly a party that's going to go far in leading the class struggle.

Get used to it, Kurt. Everytime the issue of the PSL's definition of socialism comes up, I will be bringing up how the PSL defines states like North Korea.

[Leftsolidarity]

We've had this discussion once before, KurtF8. I believe it consisted me of trying to explain to you how, if the video was about the PSL's definition of socialism, discussion about the PSL's definition of North Korea as "socialist" had direct relevance to the video.

That you keep trying the sever the two topics to avoid discussing NK shows how even the party's supporters have to shame-facedly airbrush their party's absurd line. Not exactly a party that's going to go far in leading the class struggle.

Get used to it, Kurt. Everytime the issue of the PSL's definition of socialism comes up, I will be bringing up how the PSL defines states like North Korea.

The OP's video? That was WWP not PSL. I don't think we ever shame-facedly brush away the discussion or our position. We're not ashamed to support the DPRK or any other thing that we think deserves our support.

Stupid trollish behavior that always happens in topics about the DPRK and the like is a waste of time, though, so it's usually fruitless to bother discussing it here.

[Lucretia]

The OP's video? That was WWP not PSL. I don't think we ever shame-facedly brush away the discussion or our position. We're not ashamed to support the DPRK or any other thing that we think deserves our support.

Stupid trollish behavior that always happens in topics about the DPRK and the like is a waste of time, though, so it's usually fruitless to bother discussing it here.

I believe at this point we are all referring to the campaign video the PSL released last year about "socialism," not anything the WWP has said or done. This would also make sense since the topic of the thread is a question about why people hate the PSL, not a question about the WWP.

[Art Vandelay]

Wait the PSL and WWP actually define the DPRK as `socialist.` Dear god they are even worse then I thought. I assumed they defended them on some anti-imperialist basis, not because they consider them an actual existing socialist state. Lets be very clear about this: anyone whose conception of socialism is what exists in the DPRK, is not on the side of the proletariat.

[Lucretia]

Wait the PSL and WWP actually define the DPRK as `socialist.` Dear god they are even worse then I thought. I assumed they defended them on some anti-imperialist basis, not because they consider them an actual existing socialist state. Lets be very clear about this: anyone whose conception of socialism is what exists in the DPRK, is not on the side of the proletariat.

Well now you're digging into some of the massive theoretical issues in the PSL/WWP's line about "global class war." I think one of the posters on the last page did a pretty good job systematically laying bare the logic behind it, though he wrongly attributes it to some kind of extension of "Trotskyism," which it most certainly is not. Because Marcyism defines Stalinist-type economies as co-extensive with socialist societies, it substitutes an analysis of foreign relations among nations-states -- many of them highly dictatorial -- for class analysis. So the main movers and shakers in the "global class war" are not classes. They are the governments of dictatorial states with collectivized-property-form economies. Like virtually everybody who upholds the doctrine of "socialism in one country," the definition of socialism gradually merges with whatever policy decisions a particular dictator happens to be pursuing at a given moment, even it contradicts a policy he was pursuing months before. What's unique about the PSL/WWP is that they don't even bother to reconcile the contemporaneous contradicting policies of the various states they identify as socialist, unlike the most M-L's, who will at a certain point employ the bogeyman of "revisionism" to reject the national policies of states that are at odds with those of their favored "socialist" nation.

[Leftsolidarity]

I believe at this point we are all referring to the campaign video the PSL released last year about "socialism," not anything the WWP has said or done. This would also make sense since the topic of the thread is a question about why people hate the PSL, not a question about the WWP.

Sorry, thought it was still about the OP.

[ellipsis]

Now it's a tendency war.

[KurtFF8]

We've had this discussion once before, KurtF8. I believe it consisted me of trying to explain to you how, if the video was about the PSL's definition of socialism, discussion about the PSL's definition of North Korea as "socialist" had direct relevance to the video, not least of all because the party's characterization raised serious questions about whether the video was giving an accurate portrayal of its party's views.

That you keep trying the sever the two topics to avoid discussing NK shows how even the party's supporters have to shame-facedly airbrush their party's absurd line. Not exactly a party that's going to go far in leading the class struggle.

Get used to it, Kurt. Everytime the issue of the PSL's definition of socialism comes up, I will be bringing up how the PSL defines states like North Korea.

And as was the case before: your criticism here makes little sense. Now it's one thing to take issue with the PSL's stance on the DPRK (i.e. claiming that: the PSL argues that the DPRK is socialist, and this is a problematic definition which is a very valid point in my opinion) but what that has to do with the definition of socialism in the video is beyond me.

It's quite clearly laid out in the video that socialism, to the PSL, means worker ownership and control over the MoP. Now this definition is one I'm assuming you, and others, don't see as problematic. For some reason, however, you keep taking issue with the video based on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the video (North Korea).

North Korea is not an important part of the PSL's political activity in the US, and isn't even really all that important to the PSL's program in general. Why you need to keep bringing it up it in cases where it is not relevant is beyond me.

[ellipsis]

Where? besides anarchists, the only ultras out there, generally speaking, are either holed up in the universities or doing nothing at all. if it were active such a sizable scene must camouflage itself well.

Now, i have seen 1 Progressive Labor Party (not left com or anything i know, but they have an ultra mentality in some regards, though i have not thorougly investigated. mostly hearsay tbh) paper in 3 years in a cafe on Mission St. and i know there are some other micro sects and what not, but this scene you speak of, i have never seen it.

ISO, PSL and RCP are the only active bay area marxist groups that i encountered. If ultras have a scene it must be shitty and not worth checking out.

[Lucretia]

It's quite clearly laid out in the video that socialism, to the PSL, means worker ownership and control over the MoP. Now this definition is one I'm assuming you, and others, don't see as problematic. For some reason, however, you keep taking issue with the video based on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the video (North Korea)

The video clearly lays out an understanding of socialism (workers' ownership AND control) that contradicts the state of affairs in North Korea. So either one of two things is taking place: either the PSL is lying in its video, or the PSL actually does believe what it says in its video and is so wildly off-base in applying its abstract definition to concrete circumstances, that the content is absolutely irrelevant to its concrete political activity, which includes propagandizing that the DPRK is a socialist state, sending letters of condolence when one of its dictators dies, etc.

Either way, the question of DPRK is clearly related to the contents of the video. Both involve how the PSL defines socialism, and the definitions provided in both cases contradict one another. That might be highly unpleasant for you to come to terms with, so much so that you try to prevent discussion by calling the issue "unrelated, but it's still undeniably true. And the more you try to deny it, the more of opportunity you'll be giving me to explain just how related they are for all the people reading this thread without ideological blinkers.

[vanukar]

Stupid trollish behavior that always happens in topics about the DPRK and the like is a waste of time, though, so it's usually fruitless to bother discussing it here.

So what if one exposes your sect for supporting that disgusting and abhorrent regime without "trolling?" Sounds like you're just coming up with excuses since you're incapable of defending the DPRK.

I think that video GourmetPez posted pretty much explains why everyone hates the PSL, by the way.

[KurtFF8]

The video clearly lays out an understanding of socialism (workers' ownership AND control) that contradicts the state of affairs in North Korea. So either one of two things is taking place: either the PSL is lying in its video, or the PSL actually does believe what it says in its video and is so wildly off-base in applying its abstract definition to concrete circumstances, that the content is absolutely irrelevant to its concrete political activity, which includes propagandizing that the DPRK is a socialist state, sending letters of condolence when one of its dictators dies, etc.

Either way, the question of DPRK is clearly related to the contents of the video. Both involve how the PSL defines socialism, and the definitions provided in both cases contradict one another. That might be highly unpleasant for you to come to terms with, so much so that you try to prevent discussion by calling the issue "unrelated, but it's still undeniably true. And the more you try to deny it, the more of opportunity you'll be giving me to explain just how related they are for all the people reading this thread without ideological blinkers.

Well we're kind of getting somewhere here. The video is clearly not about North Korea, as much as you want it to be. You may claim that it is inconsistent to simultaneously make the claims of the video, and the claims about the DPRK (and as I even said before, this is a valid point that I think makes sense). But your original claim is that the video is itself faulty because of an external issue (which is overall, quite minor not only for the PSL but the US Left in general).

[Lucretia]

Well we're kind of getting somewhere here. The video is clearly not about North Korea, as much as you want it to be. You may claim that it is inconsistent to simultaneously make the claims of the video, and the claims about the DPRK (and as I even said before, this is a valid point that I think makes sense). But your original claim is that the video is itself faulty because of an external issue (which is overall, quite minor not only for the PSL but the US Left in general).

Let's be precise with our language here. Is the video about North Korea in the sense that its primary topic is specifically North Korea? Of course not. The topic of the advertisement was the PSL's definition of socialism. Is the video about North Korea in the sense that it's about how it defines a concept that it applies specifically to North Korea in other contexts? Yes, in that sense the video is about North Korea. And about China. And about Cuba. They are very much related, and so North Korea is very much relevant to the content of the advertisement. To claim otherwise is just an audacious falsehood designed to divert discussion from a topic that, justifiably, makes you uncomfortable. But that discomfort is the PSL's fault, and your fault for accepting their line. It's not our fault for bringing it up.

[Leftsolidarity]

So what if one exposes your sect for supporting that disgusting and abhorrent regime without "trolling?" Sounds like you're just coming up with excuses since you're incapable of defending the DPRK.

I think that video GourmetPez posted pretty much explains why everyone hates the PSL, by the way.

Nah I'm just not going to get into a stupid sectarian flame war for absolutely no reason. You might call that "incapable" of making a valid argument but I've just learned my lesson about trying to discussion someone who refers to me as a "sect" and is clearly only interested in flaming.

[KurtFF8]

Let's be precise with our language here. Is the video about North Korea in the sense that its primary topic is specifically North Korea? Of course not. The topic of the advertisement was the PSL's definition of socialism. Is the video about North Korea in the sense that it's about how it defines a concept that it applies specifically to North Korea in other contexts? Yes, in that sense the video is about North Korea. And about China. And about Cuba. They are very much related, and so North Korea is very much relevant to the content of the advertisement. To claim otherwise is just an audacious falsehood designed to divert discussion from a topic that, justifiably, makes you uncomfortable. But that discomfort is the PSL's fault, and your fault for accepting their line. It's not our fault for bringing it up.

I've actually been quite explicit about my stance on the DPRK in this thread (twice now I've said that the criticism of the DPRK is valid).

I guess it's easier to continue a minor tendency battle than read the posts you reply to though.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The psl did wonders for me, it taught me that most people who see themselves as revolutionaries here in the us tend to have a fragile grip on reality and should be avoided if at all possible. 5 stars, would join again.

[Sand Castle]

You clearly don't really know what you're talking about. I saw no members of the leadership in that video. I know many of those people personally and, as far as I know, none of them hold actual leadership positions. They are just active members and do a lot of great work.

I know some of them too, and yes, some are or were in various leadership positions either locally or on national bodies.

Regarding what Rusty said, it is a fatal mistake to not try to address cliquish people in your organization. In my opinion, I don't think they tried to. Any organization, loose network, or what have you that fails to address this problem in its ranks isn't worth your time. It is my theory, and only my theory (so nobody take it too seriously), that such cliques and behavior is what lead to the WWP-PSL split.

Going further, I don't find it worthwhile to be part of an organization whose main activity is protesting and taking pictures of members with their mouths opened and their arms going every which way (at a protest). They have no strategy, all they do is protest. Until it's election time, then they do that.

Then members have claimed to be "experienced organizers." Maybe they are experienced protest "organizers," or experienced boring lecture "organizers," but I don't call that organizing. That is activism. Organizing is when you use your abilities, allies, members, etc as leverage to force a change, not as people to help you make noise. As flawed as he may have been, I think they need to read some Saul Alinsky.

But I'm done, I'm not dragging this out anymore. It's just a can of worms that won't resolve any of the issues. While there are good people and hard workers in the PSL, my opinion is that their abilities are being wasted. When I joined, it was for good reasons. I stayed as long as I did for good reasons. It wasn't all bad, it was worth my time, but I wouldn't do it again.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The psl did wonders for me, it taught me that most people who see themselves as revolutionaries here in the us tend to have a fragile grip on reality and should be avoided if at all possible. 5 stars, would join again.

ill take a wild guess as to who and what happened. :rolleyes:


$20 im correct.

[Yuppie Grinder]

For someone who just said "dude just watch this" you seem to have either been watching it without the volume, or are just being dishonest about what the video you keep bringing up is talking about.

Within the first 30 seconds the video says:


How that is just social democracy is beyond me.

It's certainly not socialism. Chomskyites and Titoites (lol i sound silly) spread the lie that socialism is worker's controlling their workplaces, when that is totally compatible with surplus value extraction, capital accumulation, and generalized commodity production.

[KurtFF8]

It's certainly not socialism. Chomskyites and Titoites (lol i sound silly) spread the lie that socialism is worker's controlling their workplaces, when that is totally compatible with surplus value extraction, capital accumulation, and generalized commodity production.

Are you calling the PSL Chomskyites and Titoites? :confused:

If so, then in this one thread the PSL has also been called "Brezhnevite tankies," "pro-Gorbachev," "Trotskyists," and if I read a post correctly "Stalinists" too.

That's pretty impressive for a 4 page thread.

[subcp]

Well now you're digging into some of the massive theoretical issues in the PSL/WWP's line about "global class war." I think one of the posters on the last page did a pretty good job systematically laying bare the logic behind it, though he wrongly attributes it to some kind of extension of "Trotskyism," which it most certainly is not. Because Marcyism defines Stalinist-type economies as co-extensive with socialist societies, it substitutes an analysis of foreign relations among nations-states -- many of them highly dictatorial -- for class analysis. So the main movers and shakers in the "global class war" are not classes. They are the governments of dictatorial states with collectivized-property-form economies. Like virtually everybody who upholds the doctrine of "socialism in one country," the definition of socialism gradually merges with whatever policy decisions a particular dictator happens to be pursuing at a given moment, even it contradicts a policy he was pursuing months before. What's unique about the PSL/WWP is that they don't even bother to reconcile the contemporaneous contradicting policies of the various states they identify as socialist, unlike the most M-L's, who will at a certain point employ the bogeyman of "revisionism" to reject the national policies of states that are at odds with those of their favored "socialist" nation.That's a fair objection. I'd argue that the importance of Marcy and Copeland's roots in the Socialist Worker's Party is largely lost on people who joined the WWP after the first couple years of the 1960's (this is even noted by the other founder of Global Class Struggle theory, Vincent Copeland, since the early WWP was friendly to the, at that time, Maoist PLP and even discussed a merger in the early 60's). But the logic behind why they are tankies, why they support counter-revolutionary regimes, support the massacres of revolutionary workers, support openly anti-communist states, regimes, organizations (Islamic Republic/Iran, Hamas, etc.), all starts with Trotskyist theories, and specifically American Trotskyism in the 1940's and 1950's. The decades of the 1930s-1959 that Marcy and Copeland spent in the Trotskyist Socialist Worker's Party is at the root of the Global Class Struggle theory and what the WWP became, it's all in the original articles of GCS theory written by the "Marcy/Copeland Faction" of the SWP-US, which document clearly that the theories of permanent revolution, degenerated worker's states and deformed worker's states, along with the domestic policy of the SWP in the 1930's-1950's (on the Stalinist CP in the trade unions, policy on the Korean war, etc.) were defining characteristics of Marcyism and what it became after 1959. I wrote a long article on this history of Marcyism to make that point, that Trotskyism's conclusions, of critical support for Stalinists in legal trouble, support for the "degenerated or deformed states" in imperialist wars, Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, etc. is where later (seemingly Maoist or M-L inspired theories and practices) come from. For ex. Marcy was the first person to identify the PRC as a deformed worker's state, WWP was the first to protest the Vietnam war (1962) through YAWF, etc, based on a policy of being the first and loudest voice in support of any nominal Marxist or "socialist state", which would (in theory) put the WWP in a position of influence as the most dominant pole within the American left (instead of the CPUSA or SWP). Even this idea (of being the first and loudest) is a distinctly Trotskyist line of thought- it echoes clearly the rationale behind Trotsky's "French Turn", trying to win workers from nominally socialist parties by being the most radical, the loudest, etc. and thus become a stronger pole on the political scene.

The second document contains a collection of Marcy's writings written during his days in the Trotskyist SWP, are the founding documents of "Marcyism", and clearly document this lineage.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/marcy/index.htm

[Art Vandelay]

Are you calling the PSL Chomskyites and Titoites? :confused:

If so, then in this one thread the PSL has also been called "Brezhnevite tankies," "pro-Gorbachev," "Trotskyists," and if I read a post correctly "Stalinists" too.

That's pretty impressive for a 4 page thread.

He wasn't calling the PSL Chomskyites or Titoists, he was merely pointing out the fact that the PSL are not the only ones who spread a false definition of socialism.

[Lucretia]

I've actually been quite explicit about my stance on the DPRK in this thread (twice now I've said that the criticism of the DPRK is valid).

I guess it's easier to continue a minor tendency battle than read the posts you reply to though.

You seem to be having comprehension issues about what I meant when I said "let's be precise with our language." That meant that we should clarify what, exactly, we meant we said that the advertisement did, or did not, have "something to do with" or "was about" the DPRK. I did not say that your position or stance on the DPRK was ambiguous.

[teflon_john]

He wasn't calling the PSL Chomskyites or Titoists, he was merely pointing out the fact that the PSL are not the only ones who spread a false definition of socialism.

So just to clarify, as of right now we are only Pro-Gorbachev Brezhnevite Tankie Cryptotrotskyite Jucheists, not Pro-Gorbachev Brezhnevite Tankie Cryptotrotskyite Jucheist-Chomskyite-Titoists.

[Art Vandelay]

So just to clarify, as of right now we are only Pro-Gorbachev Brezhnevite Tankie Cryptotroskyite Jucheists, not Pro-Gorbachev Brezhnevite Tankie Cryptotroskyite Jucheist-Chomskyite-Titoists.

By all means continue deflecting the valid criticisms that are being made here, by focusing the discussion around convenient ad-hominems.

[ellipsis]

All I am saying is the proof is in the pudding, psl is active in the streets like no other Marxist org. Nuf said. Fuck all the haters.

[Lucretia]

All I am saying is the proof is in the pudding, psl is active in the streets like no other Marxist org. Nuf said. Fuck all the haters.

So it's active. That's it? That says nothing about its politics. The tea party and the Ron Paulites are also active in the streets. is that also "proof in the pudding"? For there to be revolutionary practice, there must be sound revolutionary theory. And you ain't gonna find it in the PSL. Its position on DPRK is just one, albeit its most egregious, example of this.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Are you calling the PSL Chomskyites and Titoites? :confused:

If so, then in this one thread the PSL has also been called "Brezhnevite tankies," "pro-Gorbachev," "Trotskyists," and if I read a post correctly "Stalinists" too.

That's pretty impressive for a 4 page thread.

They're more like Stalinist-Third Worlidst-Marcyist-Bakuninist-Proudhouninist-Blanquists, but I think you get what I mean.

[Yuppie Grinder]

All I am saying is the proof is in the pudding, psl is active in the streets like no other Marxist org. Nuf said. Fuck all the haters.

Fuck activism for activism's sake.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Fuck activism for activism's sake.

especially when it´s used as an alibi for bad politics and theoretical vagueness.

[ellipsis]

Fuck activism for activism's sake.

Better than being an armchair revolution, engaging in tendency wars for tendency's sake.

[vanukar]

All I am saying is the proof is in the pudding, psl is active in the streets like no other Marxist org. Nuf said. Fuck all the haters.

You don't post much of substance, do you? The PSL is out on the street trying to get members so it can become famous and powerful. Wouldn't you just love to be led in revolution by these people? I can totally see them being my vanguard. Imma go call em up now BRB.

[Leftsolidarity]

Fuck activism for activism's sake.

Inactivity for, what seems like, inactivities sake is no better.

The proof really is in the street of what they're able to do and how well they do it. And they do damn well and afaik are the fastest growing socialist party in the USA.

I really find it funny how that the fact that they have a single position that some here disagree with that means they are now complete trash and all their other positions or activities are worthless.

[vanukar]

Better than being an armchair revolution, engaging in tendency wars for tendency's sake.

No it's not. Pro-revolutionaries have no impact on class struggle during a non-revolutionary period, and tbh I'd rather be at home relaxing after work than wasting my time handing out fliers or whatever.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I can't wait til the mentally ill nerds at the PSL, WWP, and RCPUSA lead me in the revolution.

[vanukar]

Inactivity for, what seems like, inactivities sake is no better.

Actually it is. Understanding your own irrelevance is healthier than burning yourself out for a stupid leftist sect.


The proof really is in the street of what they're able to do and how well they do it. And they do damn well and afaik are the fastest growing socialist party in the USA.

Which they've accomplished by using reformist rhetoric and spending lots of money. Cool! So, when is that proletarian revolution coming?


I really find it funny how that the fact that they have a single position that some here disagree with that means they are now complete trash and all their other positions or activities are worthless.

I don't think anyone is against the PSL because of one single position, but rather because of the party as a whole. Stupid, reformist rhetoric, support for capitalist dictatorships, the subjugation of the working class to Stalinism, etc.

[Leftsolidarity]

This shit is stupid trolling and flaming behavior and trying to get in some childish insults that you show know better than to post in here is enough for me. This is why most just don't even get into these discussions anymore because it's not a discussion. It's a bunch of trolling, insults, and talking at each other rather than to each other. I'm out of this bullshit.

[vanukar]

This shit is stupid trolling and flaming behavior and trying to get in some childish insults that you show know better than to post in here is enough for me. This is why most just don't even get into these discussions anymore because it's not a discussion. It's a bunch of trolling, insults, and talking at each other rather than to each other. I'm out of this bullshit.

Relax bro. I only tried to show you why people hate the PSL - didn't insult or troll you once. This site is for debate, isn't it?

[l'Enfermé]

Mod action:

Is anyone aware that here on RevLeft we have rules and these rules state that you can't spam, troll, or flamebait? Eh? So stop this bullshit right now.

[black magick hustla]

but if you want to talk about real life it's different.

well thats because people dont know you exist.

but yah u got .0001 percent in votes in some village or whatever good for you. leading light of socialism

In all seriousness, the psl/wwp are simply some of the bigger sects around. But they are still sects. THey are big in the sect sense but in the grand scheme of things, they are holed up in the activist millieu as all the other unhinged larping nerd communist groups. Let them be kings of that millieu, it's like a man with a quarter in the pocket thinking he is richer than all the men that have pennies in their pockets.

[black magick hustla]

Relax bro. I only tried to show you why people hate the PSL - didn't insult or troll you once. This site is for debate, isn't it?

yah he cries about trolls but 50 percent of his posts in this thread are

"yep all the h8rs are armchair ultralefts we are in the streets while theyre trolling"

whatever, leftists gonna left, like a wise man once said...

[Art Vandelay]

I can't wait til the mentally ill nerds at the PSL, WWP, and RCPUSA lead me in the revolution.

This is uncalled for and I find it offensive. Let me make this very clear: characterizing those with convictions you disagree with as mentally ill is not acceptable. Not only that but it is far from the type of behavior that I would suspect a communist to partake in. How are you going to change the world, when you can't even purge the reactionary sentiments within yourself. It is akin to disparaging someone with sexist, racial, or homophobic slurs and I am sick of seeing it. I suffer from mental illness and it isn't anything to be made light of. I spend alot of time attempting to break down the stigma associated with mental illness, be it by discussing my mental illness openly with others in real life, or through writing and I can't even begin to describe how discouraging it is to see this type of behavior among radicals.

[ellipsis]

Thread closed. This is why we can't have nice things. I really shouldn't have let this go on for this long.